F14 vs F18 case 1 landing difficulty

This is a mainly a question about the comparison of difficulty of landing each aircraft.

I bought the F18 day 1, and am still very much enjoying flying it.

Have to say that when I first started case 1, that I was frankly a bit pants. I was so bad that since then, my daily flying routine includes at least one carrier landing in the F18 to continue to refine and maintain the skill. Months later and many landings on, I still don’t make 100%, success rate.

The F14 arrives and I’ve probably made 10-20 landings, don’t think I’ve missed one (if you exclude the one where I landed wheels up).

I was expecting the Cat to be more difficult, and in the favour of the Cat, I’ve probably a couple of hundred landings in the Hornet now, so know what I’m doing.

All the same, the Cat does seem easier.

Do we believe that’s accurate?

Wing surface makes it exceptionally stable at low velocities for this sort of thing so should be accurate.

This is a mainly a question about the comparison of difficulty of landing each aircraft.

I bought the F18 day 1, and am still very much enjoying flying it.

Have to say that when I first started case 1, that I was frankly a bit pants. I was so bad that since then, my daily flying routine includes at least one carrier landing in the F18 to continue to refine and maintain the skill. Months later and many landings on, I still don’t make 100%, success rate.

 

The F14 arrives and I’ve probably made 10-20 landings, don’t think I’ve missed one (if you exclude the one where I landed wheels up).

I was expecting the Cat to be more difficult, and in the favour of the Cat, I’ve probably a couple of hundred landings in the Hornet now, so know what I’m doing.

 

All the same, the Cat does seem easier.

 

Do we believe that’s accurate?

Just wait for the F-14A...

With the TF30 Turbofan engines longer reaction time, I'm sure Carrier Landings won't be so easy.

I'm finding the tomcat exponentially more difficult. The only successful traps I've made have been 4 or 1 wires and end up with me almost sliding off the edge of the deck one way or another. It's ugly!

I think line-up is the most difficult part for me, any corrections I make end up with yawing oscillations and wing rock that turns pear shaped very quickly.

Cat is easier to catch a wire, harder to actually make a safe pass.

I jumped in the Hornet the other day just to compare them again, and it was so much easier.

I think with a real LSO calling waveoff, you'd be surprised how many tries it takes to get aboard. I think i have had maybe one pass in the Cat where inwouldnt have been waved off for long in the groove, high to low ball, poor lineup, etc.

The Tomcat is much easier in the groove, thanks to DLC. The Pattern, however, is bit more of a work load to maintain and fly. The Hornet, is the other way around. Easy in the pattern, a little more difficult in the groove.

Really funny you say that. I don't own the Hornet but flew it on the free weekend and trapped no problem. I did the same in the Tomcat first few times. Then I actually started trying to follow the Case 1 procedure and my success rate plumetted. Go figure. I'm sure I'll get there.

For the F14 i find it way too easy. I don't own the Hornet and i've never done any carrier landings in DCS before, i had no idea about the recommended airspeed or AOA or how to call the ball, and i succesfully landed on my second attempt. I only missed the wires on my first attempt because i am used to flare before touchdown.

This is a mainly a question about the comparison of difficulty of landing each aircraft.

I bought the F18 day 1, and am still very much enjoying flying it.

Have to say that when I first started case 1, that I was frankly a bit pants. I was so bad that since then, my daily flying routine includes at least one carrier landing in the F18 to continue to refine and maintain the skill. Months later and many landings on, I still don’t make 100%, success rate.

 

The F14 arrives and I’ve probably made 10-20 landings, don’t think I’ve missed one (if you exclude the one where I landed wheels up).

I was expecting the Cat to be more difficult, and in the favour of the Cat, I’ve probably a couple of hundred landings in the Hornet now, so know what I’m doing.

 

All the same, the Cat does seem easier.

 

Do we believe that’s accurate?

Depends upon the quality of your pattern and landings. Just getting it on the ship tells us nothing really. You can see what I am referencing in several posts above.

ive ready many reports it would be much harder as the F18. Personally i cannot say that. I had a lot more problems landing the F18. I remember dozens of tries until i could land it. Maybe things have changed by now and its easier now, i didnt fly it for a while.

The F14 on the other hand was really easy to land.... i got it on the 2.nd try and since then landed it every single time.

Additionally you have auto carrier land if youre lazy or have problems, one can use it to get into a nice position/speed too to do the rest manually.

I dont know how this different reports come to be. Also here in topic, some say its way harder and the same amount thinks its more easy^^.

Im one of the latter. Probably you have to find out for yourself what kind of person you are

There's a difference between catching a wire and flying a proper Case 1, for me the F-18 is MUCH easier. But I rather enjoy the challenge of the Turkey. I get less hook skip bolters with the F-14 so I have a low bolter percentage but getting a nice stable groove and a 3 wire is much more tricky.

I concur.

Catching a wire is really really easy with the F14.

But flying a safe and clean pattern is much hard work.

It's all about training (and getting used to) different gen airframes.

Btw - if you haven't done so, do yourselves a favor and get Andre's JetSeat for tactile feedback while flying. The SSA software implementation for the F-14's edge-of-envelope behavior is matched really well with the visible and audible buffeting and shaking the Tomcat provides, and it helps tremendously in-flight!

It's easy to catch wire in F-18 as well. It's not about that.

 

I thought flying case I pattern in F-18 is easy, but compared to F-14 it is much more difficult.

 

Somehow, handling qualities in landing configuration of F-14 are superior to those of F-18.

 

For example it will stay in commanded bank angle and F-18 always fights your bank commands - makes fine tuning of lift vector so much easier.

 

Pitch-power couple is easier to arrest in F-14.

 

Audio and vibration feedback of F-14 is helping pilot to recreate that physical feedback not felt in armchair.

 

It may sound strange, but analog instruments actually help here because you can reference to position of needle/tape against fixed scale. For example, you know where AoA tape should be and where that speed needle should be against scale. Additionally, you can understand rates of change with needles much better than with digital readouts. Same for engine indications, that FF tape is muuuch more useful than F-18 digital readout.

 

And all of that without even using DLC.

EXACTLY!

The module provides excellent feedback, so did the buffet cues in the aircraft. It pitched with power, and as I said in the Handling Tips monograph, analog instruments are easier to interpret for pilots in many situations. The rate of change of a needle is easy to pick up, as is the position of a needle. Little sags or tiny rates are easy for the eye to discern immediately.

A digital readout, especially as implemented in a HUD, doesn't provide rate of change information very well, and requires reading, discerning and digesting the meaning of a numeric value. Analog, you just glance and get the picture.

Digital/tape displays in airliners added trend vectors on the readouts to help with this. The F14D ASI info on the HUD actually mimicked a round gauge to some degree. It had a pointer with a numeric readout in the middle.

Some of the General Aviation "glass cockpits" are ridiculously cluttered and unintuitive. The premise is that massive amounts of information is a good thing. It really isn't. You want useful information displayed, and everything else hidden until needed.

We had a TPS grad in our squadron who had flown the Hornet at Pax River. He mentioned great difficulty in transitioning TPS students to basic instrument flight using the digits on its HUD. TPS grads didn't get access to long schools and lots of sim time when evaluating an aircraft. That was the entire point. The HUD in general, was often listed as a design deficiency for instrument flight.

That said, a pilot eventually learns to deal with it, but the idea that one is better than another isn't as clear cut as many believe.

EXACTLY!

 

The module provides excellent feedback, so did the buffet cues in the aircraft. It pitched with power, and as I said in the Handling Tips monograph, analog instruments are easier to interpret for pilots in many situations. The rate of change of a needle is easy to pick up, as is the position of a needle. Little sags or tiny rates are easy for the eye to discern immediately.

 

A digital readout, especially as implemented in a HUD, doesn't provide rate of change information very well, and requires reading, discerning and digesting the meaning of a numeric value. Analog, you just glance and get the picture.

 

Digital/tape displays in airliners added trend vectors on the readouts to help with this. The F14D ASI info on the HUD actually mimicked a round gauge to some degree. It had a pointer with a numeric readout in the middle.

 

Some of the General Aviation "glass cockpits" are ridiculously cluttered and unintuitive. The premise is that massive amounts of information is a good thing. It really isn't. You want useful information displayed, and everything else hidden until needed.

 

We had a TPS grad in our squadron who had flown the Hornet at Pax River. He mentioned great difficulty in transitioning TPS students to basic instrument flight using the digits on its HUD. TPS grads didn't get access to long schools and lots of sim time when evaluating an aircraft. That was the entire point. The HUD in general, was often listed as a design deficiency for instrument flight.

 

That said, a pilot eventually learns to deal with it, but the idea that one is better than another isn't as clear cut as many believe.

I keep seeing this in the Hornet, either in the HUD and the MFDs.

Especially in the MFDs, there's an abysmal quantity of information.

Eventually many of the symbols will have to be so little to fit there, that they aren't practical to see/understand at all.

i feel more comfortable with hornet but i miss the wire even with my tiny mistake or momentary aoa loose with it.

but with cat, i just drove it to the deck like truck with no brake and it landed somehow. i suprised too much , then i made a few other attempts, landed again.

Maybe I've asked my question in the wrong way. I was more interested in whether the F14 is easier to carrier land than an F18 in real life.

F18. Little kids can land that thing on the boat while text messaging and taking selfies... ;)

i feel more comfortable with hornet but i miss the wire even with my tiny mistake or momentary aoa loose with it.

but with cat, i just drove it to the deck like truck with no brake and it landed somehow. i suprised too much , then i made a few other attempts, landed again.

Precisely.

For some reason I don't know, as the Hornet's tailhook rebounds from the Carrier deck very easily and misses the wires, the Tomcat's tailhook doesn't.

The way some of you land, the Tomcat should either shear the CDP or the hook point, or pull the whole stinger off of the keel.

I'm going to update the Landing Paper with Lens Roll angle and hook to eye this weekend. The DCS ship is far too forgiving of bad technique.

Better learn to land on speed. Just catching a wire and patting yourself on the back is rubbish.

If I had my way, I'd arm up the stern CIWS and shoot down anyone who is three knots fast.

I have trouble playing with trim and dlc at the same time.

Do you still slightly adjust trim when in the groove ? Or only dlc?

Sent from my VTR-L09 using Tapatalk

I'm finding it (as some mentioned) easier, stable in the groove and nicer to control on speed (once you get there). I find the break turn problematic (tend to overdo it and struggle with altitude), base turn is mostly easier but height maintenance is an issue in the F-14. I definitely like the tools and the power availability and the engine response modelling, which is smoother and less prone to quick and high sink rates. The F-14 things seem to happen slower, but have more catastrophic issues if you cock it up. But I am definitely way less accurate in the Tomcat. It's very easy to enter the break with the Hornet bang on 350 and 800 without deviation. Right now with the Tomcat I'm a bit lax about precision because I cannot really tell without a very long look and some zoom.

The differences are great to experience.

I have trouble playing with trim and dlc at the same time.

 

Do you still slightly adjust trim when in the groove ? Or only dlc?

 

Sent from my VTR-L09 using Tapatalk

Shouldn't have to, your throttle is going to return to the downwind, on speed thereabouts. DLC is available for quick coarse adjustments. Not so much for ultimate control, but for making a change without making too much power change which would upset the trim. I.e. if you are on speed and trimmed nicely, you can make a change via DLC and it should come back to the trimmed state. Which is nicer than having to make a throttle change, then adjust attitude then re trim.

The power off after wings level is much less pronounced in the Tomcat than the Hornet (sims) and the Tomcat pilot doesn't seem to sit as far in front of the reaction curve as the Hornet, which needs you to power off before rolling wings level into the groove, as opposed to reacting with the Tomcat in realtime for power.

These are my findings, anyway, from doing the Hornet a lot (script testing for the MOOSE LSO script and then the Tomcat.)

The way some of you land, the Tomcat should either shear the CDP or the hook point, or pull the whole stinger off of the keel.

 

I'm going to update the Landing Paper with Lens Roll angle and hook to eye this weekend. The DCS ship is far too forgiving of bad technique.

 

Better learn to land on speed. Just catching a wire and patting yourself on the back is rubbish.

 

If I had my way, I'd arm up the stern CIWS and shoot down anyone who is three knots fast.

Yeah they did that to the recon F/A-18 in "Under Siege"... the poor guy didn't even had time to eject.

What you don't know, is that Jester already praised my airfield landing skills.

It was something like this: " Man that landing felt like stretching on a sofa! Nice! "

Althoug I've had my share of PC sim experience in Carrier Landings:

- TOPGUN: Fire at Will... ( 24 years ago, time goes by!!! )

- some F/A-18 sims;

- Strike Fighters 2: North Atlantic;

- Aerosoft's F-14X for FSX;

... the truth is sometimes I get a little lazy, and don't read the complete manuals for each aircraft.

(I have probably read more from the Tomcat manual, than the the Fishbed and Hornet combined.)

Tipically in the Tomcat, Case 1 Carrier Landing, I try to:

- fly the glideslope;

- maintain 120 - 130 kts (if in low weight overall);

- nose pitch-up at 6 - 7 degrees;

- AoA roughly 10 or 12 units ?

... but my main reference still is: the flight path marker (velocity vector) !

(But already managed to land with the HUD off in an airfield.)

I do not kid myself - I know I have work to do, to land at the Carrier "by the book".

The way some of you land, the Tomcat should either shear the CDP or the hook point, or pull the whole stinger off of the keel.

 

I'm going to update the Landing Paper with Lens Roll angle and hook to eye this weekend. The DCS ship is far too forgiving of bad technique.

 

Better learn to land on speed. Just catching a wire and patting yourself on the back is rubbish.

 

If I had my way, I'd arm up the stern CIWS and shoot down anyone who is three knots fast.

Lol..